Advertisement

Effects of boundary condition on shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite in experimental cavity models made of dental substrates

  • Dalia Kaisarly
  • Moataz El Gezawi
  • Indra Nyamaa
  • Peter Rösch
  • Karl-Heinz Kunzelmann
Original Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Bond strength to enamel and dentin depends on the bonding approach or condition. This study investigated the effects of the boundary conditions, in terms of the bonding substrate and the bonding condition, on the shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite.

Materials and methods

An experimental cylindrical cavity (diameter = 6 mm, depth = 3 mm) consisting of the enamel floor and the surrounding dentin cavity walls was prepared for the “enamel-floor” group. Cylindrical cavities of the same dimensions were prepared with access from the occlusal enamel into dentin and served as controls. Each cavity model group was divided and bonded with two bonding conditions (n = 9): a self-etch (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE) and a total-etch approach (OptiBond FL, Kerr). The composite (Tetric EvoFlow, Ivoclar Vivadent) was mixed with glass beads, applied to the cavity, scanned twice by micro-CT (uncured and cured states). The scans were evaluated by rigid registration, sphere segmentation, and registration for computing shrinkage vectors.

Results

The free surface of all restorations moved downward. The shrinkage vectors in the experimental cavity model pointed downward towards the enamel cavity floor, and the net axial movement was downward. In the control group, shrinkage vectors additionally moved upward, away from the cavity floor. The effect of the bonding substrate and the bonding condition was investigated for the shrinkage vectors and the axial movement (univariate ANOVA).

Conclusion

The bonding substrate, enamel, influenced the shrinkage vectors’ direction, while the bonding condition caused only variations in the magnitude.

Clinical relevance

Bonding to enamel influences shrinkage vectors’ direction, while the bonding condition plays only a minor role.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Flowable composite Shrinkage vectors Enamel Dentin Self-etch adhesive Total-etch adhesive 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. T. Obermeier, Mrs. E. Koebele, and Mrs. G. Dachs for their technical support and SEM images.

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The research ethics committee of the medical faculty of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany has approved the use of extracted human teeth in anonymized form (#078-14).

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM (2012) Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. 13th edn. Elsevier/Mosby, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiang YC, Rösch P, Dabanoglu A, Lin CP, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH (2010) Polymerization composite shrinkage evaluation with 3D deformation analysis from microCT images. Dent Mater 26:223–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.09.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaisarly D, El Gezawi M, Xu X, Rösch P, Kunzelmann K-H (2018) Shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite in artificial cavity models with different boundary conditions: ceramic and Teflon. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 77:414–421.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH (1998) Do dental composites always shrink toward the light? J Dent Res 77:1435–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho E, Sadr A, Inai N, Tagami J (2011) Evaluation of resin composite polymerization by three dimensional micro-CT imaging and nanoindentation. Dent Mater 27:1070–1078.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.07.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Ende A, Van de Casteele E, Depypere M, De Munck J, Li X, Maes F, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B (2015) 3D volumetric displacement and strain analysis of composite polymerization. Dent Mater 31:453–461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirata R, Clozza E, Giannini M, Farrokhmanesh E, Janal M, Tovar N, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG (2015) Shrinkage assessment of low shrinkage composites using micro-computed tomography. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 103:798–806.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33258 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaisarly D, El Gezawi M, Lai G, Jin J, Rösch P, Kunzelmann KH (2018) Effects of occlusal cavity configuration on 3D shrinkage vectors in a flowable composite. Clin Oral Investig 22:2047–2056.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2304-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Heymann HO (1995) Bonding to enamel and dentin: a brief history and state of the art, 1995. Quintessence Int 26:95–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun J, Eidelman N, Lin-Gibson S (2009) 3D mapping of polymerization shrinkage using X-ray micro-computed tomography to predict microleakage. Dent Mater 25:314–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun J, Lin-Gibson S (2008) X-ray microcomputed tomography for measuring polymerization shrinkage of polymeric dental composites. Dent Mater 24:228–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zeiger DN, Sun J, Schumacher GE, Lin-Gibson S (2009) Evaluation of dental composite shrinkage and leakage in extracted teeth using X-ray microcomputed tomography. Dent Mater 25:1213–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.04.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takemura Y, Hanaoka K, Kawamata R, Sakurai T, Teranaka T (2014) Three-dimensional X-ray micro-computed tomography analysis of polymerization shrinkage vectors in flowable composite. Dent Mater J 33:476–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porte A, Lutz F, Lund MR, Swartz ML, Cochran MA (1984) Cavity designs for composite resins. Oper Dent 9:50–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goracci C, Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Cardoso PE, Ferrari M (2004) Microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent 6:313–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B (2001) Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 3:237–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sampaio CS, Chiu KJ, Farrokhmanesh E, Janal M, Puppin-Rontani RM, Giannini M, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Hirata R (2017) Microcomputed tomography evaluation of polymerization shrinkage of class I Flowable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 42:E16–e23.  https://doi.org/10.2341/15-296-l CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Algamaiah H, Sampaio CS, Rigo LC, Janal MN, Giannini M, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Reis AF, Hirata R (2017) Microcomputed tomography evaluation of volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class II cavities. J Esthet Restor Dent 29:118–127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12275 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sampaio CS, Atria PJ, Rueggeberg FA, Yamaguchi S, Giannini M, Coelho PG, Hirata R, Puppin-Rontani RM (2017) Effect of blue and violet light on polymerization shrinkage vectors of a CQ/TPO-containing composite. Dent Mater 33:796–804.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.04.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaisarly D, Gezawi ME (2016) Polymerization shrinkage assessment of dental resin composites: a literature review. Odontology 104:257–270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0264-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaisarly D (2014) The effect of boundary conditions on the polymerization shrinkage vectors of light-cured dental resin composites. PhD thesis, ediss:19023, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindberg A, Peutzfeldt A, van Dijken JW (2004) Curing depths of a universal hybrid and a flowable resin composite cured with quartz tungsten halogen and light-emitting diode units. Acta Odontol Scand 62:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Q, Ding J, Chambers DE, Debnath S, Wunder SL, Baran GR (2001) Filler-coupling agent-matrix interactions in silica/polymethylmethacrylate composites. J Biomed Mater Res 57:384–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chiang YC (2009) Polymerization shrinkage with light-initiated dental composites. PhD thesis, ediss:10708, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    He Z, Shimada Y, Tagami J (2007) The effects of cavity size and incremental technique on micro-tensile bond strength of resin composite in class I cavities. Dent Mater 23:533–538.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.03.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zaslansky P, Friesem AA, Weiner S (2006) Structure and mechanical properties of the soft zone separating bulk dentin and enamel in crowns of human teeth: insight into tooth function. J Struct Biol 153:188–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2005.10.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1987) Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 66:1636–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Al-Harbi F, Kaisarly D, Michna A, ArRejaie A, Bader D, El Gezawi M (2015) Cervical interfacial bonding effectiveness of class II bulk versus incremental fill resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 40:622–635.  https://doi.org/10.2341/14-152-l CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    El Gezawi M, Al-Harbi F (2012) Reliability of bonded MOD restorations in maxillary premolars: microleakage and cusp fracture resistance. Acta Stomatol Croat 46:31–42Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koase K, Inoue S, Noda M, Tanaka T, Kawamoto C, Takahashi A, Nakaoki Y, Sano H (2004) Effect of bur-cut dentin on bond strength using two all-in-one and one two-step adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 6:97–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tay FR, Pashley DH (2004) Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: a review. J Dent 32:173–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2003.10.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sarr M, Kane AW, Vreven J, Mine A, Van Landuyt KL, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J (2010) Microtensile bond strength and interfacial characterization of 11 contemporary adhesives bonded to bur-cut dentin. Oper Dent 35:94–104.  https://doi.org/10.2341/09-076-l CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University HospitalLMU MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental MedicineCairo UniversityCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Conservative DentistryFaculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo UniversityCairoEgypt
  4. 4.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of Applied SciencesAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations